From Lazy to Prolific: Tackling Missing Labels in Open Vocabulary Extreme Classification by Positive-Unlabeled Sequence Learning

August 16, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Ranran Haoran Zhang, Bensu UΓ§ar, Soumik Dey, Hansi Wu, Binbin Li, Rui Zhang arXiv ID 2408.08981 Category cs.IR: Information Retrieval Cross-listed cs.CL Citations 5 Venue North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Open-vocabulary Extreme Multi-label Classification (OXMC) extends traditional XMC by allowing prediction beyond an extremely large, predefined label set (typically $10^3$ to $10^{12}$ labels), addressing the dynamic nature of real-world labeling tasks. However, self-selection bias in data annotation leads to significant missing labels in both training and test data, particularly for less popular inputs. This creates two critical challenges: generation models learn to be "lazy'" by under-generating labels, and evaluation becomes unreliable due to insufficient annotation in the test set. In this work, we introduce Positive-Unlabeled Sequence Learning (PUSL), which reframes OXMC as an infinite keyphrase generation task, addressing the generation model's laziness. Additionally, we propose to adopt a suite of evaluation metrics, F1@$\mathcal{O}$ and newly proposed B@$k$, to reliably assess OXMC models with incomplete ground truths. In a highly imbalanced e-commerce dataset with substantial missing labels, PUSL generates 30% more unique labels, and 72% of its predictions align with actual user queries. On the less skewed EURLex-4.3k dataset, PUSL demonstrates superior F1 scores, especially as label counts increase from 15 to 30. Our approach effectively tackles both the modeling and evaluation challenges in OXMC with missing labels.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Information Retrieval

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted